Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9
have had an experience of this in new england. new hampshire has no income tax, no sales tax. every state around hampshire had one or the other. in the 1960's, and every state added another one, either the sales tax or the income tax. within hesitation of their people that the other tax would come out and the revenue would be used because it will be more effective in collecting it. every one of those states, the revenues have gone down, the income tax has gone up, and the size of government has gone up. from my standpoint, a value- added tax is just a way to grossly expand the size of the government, and it does not fix our revenue problems. more importantly than that, just the point where i think this argument ends up, the american people would annihilate any party that passed a national sales tax rate. if the democratic party thinks they are in charge now, and they are, and the republican party has done some things to marginalize itself, but if you want to resurrect a republican party, give me a value-added tax. >> let's take the value-added tax off the table for this the session,
know where both sides are on taxes. i think we understand that. but to the speaker's point, we have not had any discussion and any specifics with this president about the real problem, which is spending. we have got to do something about the spending. and obsessions to raise taxes is not going to solve the problem. what will solve the problem is, doing something about the entitlements, taking on the wasteful spending in washington. we can't just keep borrowing money and raising taxes and expecting the problem to go away. that is our point to the president. and as the speaker said, we want to sit down with the president and want to talk specifics. we put an offer on the table now. he has out of hand reject that had. where are the specifics and where are the discussions? nothing is going on. the people of this country are suffering. we ask the president, sit down with us and be serious about the specifics in the spending so we can stop the wasteful spending in washington and finally address the problem. >> as we continue to try to solve the fiscal cliff, the thing we have continued to
will be cut by january 1 in order to avoid sequestration and all the tax hikes? mark, i will start with you. >> i think it is 80% that we will avoid sequestration. the question is, though, is this going to be a big enough deal, and will actually be enough of a down payment that it will lead to something else subsequently that will actually avoid the kind of enormous consequences of $16 trillion of debt? that percentage will be lower than the 80%. >> let's come back to the big picture -- in the short term, by january 1 -- will we avoid the cliff? >> i think it is likely that we avoid it. it does not appear that that is going so well. it is so easy for us just to do the things we need to do. i think the real line in the sand is going to be the debt ceiling. i really do think -- i have said that for a long time. i think that is when, hopefully, by that time anyway we will have real entitlement reform, which will bring all of this together. >> chris? >> i think it is better than 50% that we are able to get an agreement before january 1. but that is premised on a belief that our republican colle
that senior aides are considering just such a strategy to give them a soft landing in the tax debate. they live to fight another day on spending cuts. we agree that a tax hike on middle-class americans should be taken off the table in the middle of the christmas season. >> let's get serious and across of the biggest item on our to do list and get this senate tax cut bill passed and passed now. >> questions? >> you going to call on people? >> yes. >> >> we're here to encourage the hike that will average $2,200 a are getting ready for the newit is fair, it is one thing that trillion in spending reductions. gas to go back and forth to the house as well as olympia republicans said, why don't you the house it will pass with a bipartisan vote. what other spending cuts would you propose? what has gotten us into this mess is people propose large numbers and never fell in the details. we have filled in the details of our first step. let them kill and the details of their first step on it attacks or the spending side. they have not done either so it is not much of an offer. >> what they did sa
at the president's offer. we haven't found any spending reductions at all. we found the $1.6 trillion tax increases. the stimulus spending,we saw the extension of the unemployment insurance, which is an increase in spending. the delay in the spending cuts whatsoever. do you think the president's current offer gives us the 2-1 test? >> no. it is short. he needs to come up with roughly $600 billion more in spending cuts over the next 10 years. i think that there are significant reforms in medicare, medicaid, agricultural subsidies, and other programs in the budget. those are difficult things to implement. it takes a lot of guts to propose those things. i would not discount them. they are important. to answer your question more specifically, we do name or spending cuts to get to my ideal. -- we need more spending cuts to get to my ideal. >> policymakers need to reform entitlements. i do see members of the other party -- most notably, mr. hoyer --he said, not now. they are on the table for a later discussion. i have been disappointed that a lot of the discussion seems to be on the revenue side and not
capital gains rate in the a.m.t. is higher than the regular tax rates from incomes around $200,000 to $500,000. and that was the first broad expansion of the a.m.t., it began to hit an awful lot of people. then in 2001 they reduced regular tax rates but did not reduce a.m.t. tax rates. . for many people, the a.m.t. tax bill only changed the name of the tax i paid. i got little benefit from the rate ofin my opinion, the expand on tax has nothing to do with the action of indexing. it is the result of the conscious decision to hike the cost of tax reductions. >> the alternative minimum tax is 28%. if your tax rate was lowered to 25%. you still have to pay 28%. >> that is correct. for incomes between to london thousand dollars and $500,000, the effective tax rate is 35%. you hit the 35% rate and incomes fire lower than the income levels at which you would hit the 35% rate and regular tax. >> why do they call it a patch? >> it is a one time year by year patch to stop the broad expansion. you could ask why they call it a cliff. they have discussed this in terms of the patch. it is a
corporate and individual taxes. the third piece is small businesses. we work out how develop a tax code that is good for competitiveness. you need to think about how those play into it. i think one of the things to keep hearing through messages with different groups of people is, while everybody is aware that the solution is going to take sacrifices from all sides, on spending, on revenues -- the confidence you get for putting the deal in place to actually has tremendous economic benefits. the cheapest form of stimulus is confidence. if we can put that in place, and people believe something is going to stick, it becomes easier to do your part in all of this. if the moving pieces and revenue are there, do not underestimate the benefit of what the future holds. >> this ties into michael's point. the productivity, the amount of money they get spent maintaining and administering the complex tax code is unbelievable. i would rather be spending that money. let us get on with building a business. society should do it. people should take that as a given. i know the rest of us have it. we would
a factory in china and sell cars. they can delay paying u.s. taxes on that indefinitely. but the money comes from the rent, as so-called passive income, they have to pay taxes on that immediately. this provision says if your a bank -- you can be late paying your taxes. it is going to be considered active income. it is quite valuable to them. it is kind of a gray area. in 1986 when they did big tax reform, they said that is active income and we should tax that money. host: we have been talking with sam goldfarb from cq roll call. thank you very much. >> explores the history and literary culture of all money -- of albany. tonight on c-span, a senate debate on the fiscal cliff. shaun donovan discusses it. harry reid and mitch mcconnell when back-and-forth on fiscal cliff issues and a proposal to raise the debt ceiling. here is part of their exchange. >> yesterday afternoon, i came to the floor and offered president obama's proposal on the fiscal cliff to show that neither he nor democrats in congress are acting in good faith in these negotiations. with just a few weeks ago before a potentially
that we need to repeal this law that tries to set a debt limit and concentrate more on taxing and spending policies that causes to raise the debt, as i understand? >> absolutely. it is a bad way to conduct policy. it is a problem. look at july and august of 2011. it was a mess. gdp downgraded the debt. it really had an impact. cbo is estimating the interest costs is costing us money. it is pretty clear that this is not going to get any better going forward. it will be worse. this is a really bad way of doing things. we need to get rid of this. having said that, we need budget rules. we need to find a way to be credible. the debt ceiling approach is the wrong way of doing it. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator. >> i want to pursue that question a little bit. this is on my mind also. my experience is the political system find it awfully difficult to say no to constituents. with reelection in mind or a natural human tendency to want to please people rather than disappoint them. i had the privilege of meeting with christine lagarde from the imf. i asked about the reforms that we
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9